Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S Review

The Panasonic GH5S is a video-focused Micro Four Thirds camera built around what the company markets as a 10.2MP sensor. It's best understood as an even more video-centric variant of the GH5: it can shoot either DCI or UHD 4K footage natively (one capture pixel = one output pixel) at up to 60p.

Panasonic wasn't the first company to introduce high quality video to what was otherwise a still camera, but with its GH series it has been constantly expanding the range of professional video features appearing in consumer stills/video cameras. The GH5S takes this logic one step further, by lowering the sensor resolution and omitting image stabilization to make a more single-minded video tool, rather than an hybrid intended to be similarly capable at both disciplines.

The ability to shoot DCI 4K at up to 60p with no crop is the most obvious distinction between this and the standard GH5, but the differences run deeper:

Key specifications

Oversized 'Multi Aspect' sensor with dual gain design

10.2MP maximum usable area from at around 12.5MP total

DCI or UHD 4K at up to 60p

10-bit 4:2:2 internal capture at up to 30p

8-bit 4:2:0 internal 60p or 10-bit 4:2:2 output over HDMI

1080 footage at up to 240p (with additional crop above 200p)

Hybrid Log Gamma mode

ISO 160 - 51,200 (80 - 204,800 extended)

AF rated down to –5EV (with F2 lens)

3.68M-dot (1280 x 960 pixel) OLED viewfinder with 0.76x magnification

1.62M-dot (900 x 600 pixel) fully articulated LCD

14-bit Raw stills

11 fps (7 with AFC) or 1 fps faster in 12-bit mode

USB 3.1 with Type C connector

As well as the ability to shoot DCI 4K at higher frame rates, Panasonic also claims the GH5S's larger pixels and 'Dual Native ISO' sensor will mean it shoots significantly better footage in low light.

Beyond these changes, the GH5S keeps the rest of the GH5's capabilities, with matching codec options and the same support tools, such as vectorscopes, wave forms and preview modes for anamorphic, Log and Hybrid Log Gamma shooting, for instance.

As on the GH5, Panasonic recommends the use of V60 rated cards or faster for shooting 400Mbps video. However, the V60 standard itself seems to be vague enough that even some nominally V60-compliant cards are still not fast enough. The company says to use either its own brand V60 or V90 cards or to stick to well-known manufacturers with a proven history of producing fast cards (and, ideally, to buy from a source with a good return policy).

Multi-aspect sensor

The GH5S uses a chip that natively shoots DCI or UHD 4K, meaning one pixel on the sensor is used to produce each pixel in the final footage. The sensor, like that on the GH1 and GH2, is oversized. This means it can shoot different aspect ratios using the full extent of the imaging circle projected by the lens, rather than simply cropping down from the 4:3 region.

4:3

3:2

16:9

~17:9 (DCI)

1:1

As well as using the maximum amount of pixels and silicon for each aspect ratio (with consequent image quality benefits), this also means that the diagonal angle of view is preserved, whether you shoot 4:3, 3:2, 16:9 or in DCI 4K's roughly 17:9 aspect ratio.

It also means that the GH5S should offer a fractionally wider angle-of-view than the GH5 when shooting video, especially when capturing DCI footage.

The only downside is that the use of a larger region could limit the use of APS-C and Super35 lenses in conjunction with focal length reducing adaptors, such as SpeedBoosters. A 0.71x reducer needs to capture a roughly 30.5mm image circle to cover the GH5S's larger video region, while a 0.64x reducer needs a 33.8mm image circle, both of which are larger than is guaranteed to be projected by an APS-C lens. You'll almost certainly be OK with the 0.71x adaptor, since that's been shown to work with the majority of APS-C lenses but with the 0.64x versions it's likely you'll have to check on a case-by-case basis.

Dual Gain

Panasonic describes the GH5S as having 'Dual Native ISO,' which is standard video terminology for a dual gain sensor design. Such chips have two read-out modes, one that maximises dynamic range at low sensitivity settings and a second designed to minimize noise but at the cost of dynamic range, at higher settings (the second mode changes the 'conversion gain': essentially increasing the pixel's voltage output). It's something we first encountered in Nikon's 1 Series cameras but that's become increasingly common over the past few years, resulting in visible improvements at high ISO settings.

The only difference we can see between the approach taken by Panasonic is that it lets you limit the camera to either one of the sensor's modes, whereas other brands just change mode in the background, without the user ever knowing.

One of the only concepts fuzzier than 'ISO' sensitivity itself is the videography term 'Native ISO'

From a stills point of view, the two circuits are used from ISO 160 - 640 and from ISO 800 and upwards, respectively. You'll see talk of the camera having 'Native ISO's of 400 and 2500' but this is perhaps best completely ignored.

One of the only concepts fuzzier than 'ISO' sensitivity itself is the videography term 'Native ISO,' which essentially appears to mean 'setting at which the quality is good but that gives room to move either up or down from.' This should not be confused with the idea of base ISO, which is the setting with the minimal amount of amplification, which usually results in the widest dynamic range.

Lower pixel count

The other thing Panasonic says contributes to giving the GH5S a performance boost in low light is the adoption of fewer and therefore larger pixels.

In general terms, there's no significant advantage to large pixels over small ones: individually they have access to more light (which usually means less noise when viewed 1:1) but once you scale things to a common size, the noise and dynamic range levels tend to be similar. Instead, using more but smaller pixels can have a resolution benefit, even if you then downsize. This is because pixelated systems can only capture a certain percentage of their nominal resolution, but sampling at a higher resolution then downsizing (oversampling) can preserve some of the higher frequency detail it initially captures.

By concentrating on video capture, Panasonic is able to pick sides in this struggle

However, readout speed and processing/heat constraints mean very few cameras currently offer oversampled video, instead sub-sampling their sensors to find the ~8.5MP needed to capture 4K footage. This creates a tension between the needs of high-res stills photographer and lower-resolution of video capture. By concentrating on video capture, Panasonic is able to pick sides in this struggle.

The most obvious benefit is that it's quicker to read out fewer pixels. So, while the latest processors are fast enough to generate oversampled footage from high pixel counts, the sensor read-out rate risks creating significant rolling shutter. Having fewer pixels means the GH5S should have less rolling shutter than the GH5.

Having a lower pixel count also means the GH5S is also able to include an anti-aliasing filter that reduces the risk of video moiré, without having to worry about limiting the stills resolution.

Just as we expect to see better pixel-level noise from larger pixels, logic would also lead you to expect greater pixel-level dynamic range (even though again, this advantage tends to disappear when you compare images at the same size). This additional pixel-level dynamic range is the reason the GH5S needs to offer 14-bit Raw files: because you need the extra bit-depth to provide room for that additional dynamic range.

No stabilization

From a photographic perspective it may seem odd to remove image stabilization from the camera but for high-end video shooting, Panasonic says it makes sense. Sensor-shift IS systems operate by 'floating' the sensor using a series of electromagnets. Even when they're 'off' they're not locked in place, they're simply set so that the electromagnets aren't attempting to correct for movement. This has the side-effect that, which mounted on a professional stabilization rig, there's a risk of the sensor being shaken around.

For high-end video work, Panasonic says its users would prefer to use dedicated gimbals and dollies, rather than internal stabilization, and that means physically locking the sensor in place to avoid unwanted interactions between these systems and a floating sensor.

However, regardless of what Panasonic says, there's also the limitation imposed by the oversized sensor: since the camera captures right out to the edge of the image circle there's simply no room to shift the sensor without risking capturing footage of the inside of your lens barrel. This is highlighted in the one situation in which the GH5S does offer digital stabilization: when combined with a lens offering optical stabilization. When engaged, the video has to crop-in slightly to provide room to pan and scan around the sensor.

Can someone explain me how this camera have 'oversized sensor' when in all the specs sheets it says the sensor is 17.3mm x 13mm? It's regular m43 size. If the resolution is 3680 x 2760 then how is it possible to capture DCI material with resolution of 4096 x 2160? We need like 416 more pixels on the long side.

It'll be interesting to see. The a7 III is likely to be more detailed, since it's oversampling, but there's also likely to be more prominent rolling shutter and, of course, there's still the more limited codec, so I'm not expecting the DR or gradability to be any better than the a7S II we showed in this review. But we'll see.

I hated the GH5. I've seen a lot of great video taken by others, but for me, everything looked awful and I couldn't make out anything on the screen, which made it very difficult to shoot with. I sent the first one back, thinking there was something wrong with it, but the 2nd was the same.

The GH5S was the complete opposite. Very easy to shoot with (like my GH4) and the footage is the best I've ever taken.

After two days of shooting GH5s in Dubai, I've stumbled across two problems. The first is that when shooting stills and panning rapidly (following falcons in flight), I've noticed that rolling shutter is TERRIBLE. Like 30 degree tilting of vertical lines in the background. The second is that the Photo Style parameter seems to be shared between Photo and Movie modes. I cannot seem to set STANDARD as my Photo Mode for stills and VLOG-L as my Photo Mode for MOVIE (which is how I've done things on my GH4 for years). When I switch between stills and movie modes, I have to change Photo Modes, which is a real problem when things are happening quickly. Am I missing something?

My camera was experiencing this kind of problem for about half an hour. I wouldn't even calling it rolling shutter, it just couldn't pan without dragging the prior view with it. Then it fixed itself. I recommend putting a lot of hours on the camera when you first get it. Other than that I love the camera.

I'm giving this review a Gold Award. Nice job, Richard! This is the best review I've ever seen on DPR. It sets a new standard. There is technical information that I've not seen even on dedicated video sites, and it was all explained in a clear, concise manner. It has nice diagrams helping explain what are fairly complicated subjects. I learned a lot reading this review. Big thanks for taking the time to explain all this, and really digging into it in such detail.

And now with incredible low light performance from the new sensor and the dual native ISO, VLOG L preinstalled, multi aspect ratio, DCI 4k up to 60fps and 1080p up to 240fps, along with everything it previously had (aside from Dual I.S and 6K photo mode, I dont mind that these features are gone for the GH5S, best part is, there is a legitimate reason for it and this camera is not meant to replace the GH5) everything this camera has externall and internally makes the GH5S my favourite camera on the market alongside the G9!!

Absolutely love this camera!! Panasonic is always innovating anf never at the cost of losing build features and functions unnecessarily such as flip out fully articulating touchscreen, features like focus peaking, mic and headphone jack, excellent EVF, high framerate 240fps 1080p and DCI 4k 60fps.Panasonic hasn't cut corners with their GH and G series!

I am getting some really interesting results with my GH5s. It appears that ISO 160 is the base ISO for CineD Low with ISO 1600 being the base ISO for CineD High.

However, both HLG and Vlog-L are giving different results. HLG and Vlog-L appear to be ISO 320 for Low and then ISO 3200 for high. ISO 1600 is good. However, ISO 3200 is slightly better.

Now this is actually a scientific test. I am recording dark frames at these ISOs. This is a process that has been used for quite some time in astrophotography. This eliminates the possibility of shot noise because the body cap is on the camera which lets zero light in.

Instead this process isolates just the read noise and allows us to see the true gain for each individual ISO value.

Is the high speed video limited to a short amount of recording time or can you take a few minutes with it in a row? And what is the bitrate for 240fps? There's a table showing lots of different video resolutions and framerates but not a single higher speed is listed there, why?

You can buy Nikon F to Micro Four Thirds adapters, including Speedboosters that effectively shorten the focal length to give essentially APS-C angle-of-view and depth-of-field. (The ones for 'G' lenses are less fiddly than the ones that need mechanical aperture control, in my experience).

Richard, I think you will find this interesting. By changing a setting slightly auto focus improves immensely with the GH5 and GH5s for video. It is even more noticeable with Canon and AF adapted lenses. Hunting mostly goes away. There is a good explanation as to why this improves focusing too. You may even want to amend the review with this information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pCgI4ht1Eo

I watched the video and will certainly give it a try as soon as I get a moment. However, all I'd expect it to do is speed up the hunting, since the system is fundamentally CDAF based. I'm also not sure how good it needs to get to be acceptable to the kinds of people likely to buy and shoot with a camera with such high video quality.

How about this for a standard: I shoot video for money and for me the autofocus needs to be as good as or better than what I could get from the Canon EOS C200. Why? The world is full of solo video shooters who work under less-than-ideal conditions and despite what armchair experts will tell you, focus peaking doesn’t work in every lighting situation. More importantly when you’re in hour 7 of a 10-hour assignment in some dimly lit wedding venue or custom metal fabrication business, you can’t really trust your blurry, burning, exhausted eyes to focus on anything. Are the c200 and the GH5S in the same price ballpark? No, but for people like me, if I can get more usable shots in less time from one or the other, then the cost is worth it.

Can someone with a GH5s test continuous AF with a sub 180 degree shutter? Like 1/50th and 30p? (24p may not work). For some reason C-AF becomes much improved when using less than a 180 degree shutter. This was a recent finding and is getting discussed on video sites.It appears to be superb at 25p yet poor at 24p with the GH5.

Barry Green’s white paper on Vlog-L(From the Panasonic Website) defines the upper limit as exactly 4 stops above middle grey. That is a value of approximately 730. However, you define the upper limit as 768 for 10 BIT Vlog-L. Which one is correct?

Yes, it is not that big a deal. Ultimately, the camera still captures essentially the same dynamic range. However, it is good to know what is the true value and I am sure Richard can get that answer for us.

Thank you for all of your work on this, Richard. This really was a thorough review. That helps us all tremendously. My GH5s arrives tomorrow. :)

I confirmed what you reported in the review last night. Vlog-L is definitely 128-768 in 10 BIT form with Resolve. I think Barry's White Paper did some rounding to make it sound less complicated than it really is.

Panasonic probably just figured that no one would examine it this closely so they posted it as is on their website. In the end it would only really matter for "correction LUTs".

In the GH5 the HLG mode is reported as "Limited" when you examine the video file on a computer. Also the camera itself even shows that the Luminance Level is limited to values of "64-940".

Is the GH5s different? Does it show full range "Luminance Level" in the camera and when examined with a computer? Your review states that HLG can do a value of 1024 for the brightest highlight for the GH5s. Is that accurate?

I checked back for you. Like the GH5, the camera greys-out that option and states it to be 64-940, which is interesting, given the Resolve screengrab on page 7 of the review (which appears to imply the file is using 0-1023.

I suppose there's a possibility that Resolve is treating 940 as IRE 100 and 64 as 0 but it seems odd that it would then display it with 10-bit values on the left axis.

That said, when I pull the V-Log L footage into Final Cut Pro, it shows it clipping at IRE 75, not 80, so something odd is going on.

I did some testing with the GH5 last night and HLG is definitely recording in a “Limited” space. However, I believe Davinci Resolve displays it as “Full” data levels if the clip is tagged with either “Auto” or “Video” in the “Clip Attributes” screen. If you choose “Full” for the HLG clip in the “Clip Attributes” screen then it will display the proper clipping points of 64 and 940.

I think Resolve is the issue there. It almost seems like they have it backwards or that they assume you want to see a “Limited” video as “Full” if you select “Video” in the “Clip Attributes” screen. That seems confusing to me but it may be what other people are more comfortable with.

I will confirm that the GH5s works the same way when I get mine in a few minutes. However, based on the data you have provided I am pretty sure it does.

For now I am going to manually set all HLG clips to "Full" in Resolve so that it displays as 64-940 like it actually is.

I'll check that when I'm next in the office and will update the images in the review accordingly. I'll be the first to admit I'm not especially familiar with Resolve but it was the s/w I had access to that reported data values, rather than IRE (or appeared to).

Richard, for not being familiar with Resolve you did an unbelievable job with this review. You taught me several things I didn't know about Resolve and also tested a few things in ways I hadn't thought of. Excellent job with this review. Keep up the great work.

I am still testing my GH5s that I got this morning. I can confirm the ISO 160 as a Base ISO. However, my testing did not confirm ISO 800 as a base ISO in CineD with ISO High. It is higher than 800. Probably even higher than ISO 1600.

It is crazy! ISO 1600 on the GH5s is a lot better than ISO 200 on the GH5 with CineD. Simply astonishing.

I stand corrected. I have evidence that would suggest that in HLG mode ISO 400 is the base ISO for Low and ISO 3200 is the Base ISO for High. Both are simply outstanding but the ISO 3200 is exceptionally intriguing. I simply cannot figure out how they are making ISO 3200 virtually noiseless.

Liberty ain’t what you think, from the article you just read: “Not so good forRun-and-gun shooting, stills photography.”

“If you're particularly interested in stills as well as video, we'd be inclined to point you towards the standard GH5, since it offers a significantly higher pixel count and in-body image stabilization, both of which will directly benefit your still images.”

“And, while it doesn't get an especially high score in our stills-focused scoring system, we have no hesitation in awarding it a Gold for what it brings to the users it's designed for.”

HoustonTexan75: the a7S II was pitched as the video-focused member of the a7 series and its pixel count was clearly chosen to offer native 4K shooting, so it'c conceptually very similar to the GH5S in that respect.

The a7R III is an interesting comparison. As you say, its Super35 mode video is highlight detailed, thanks to oversampling, but we wouldn't expect it to be as strong in low light as the a7S II, given it's effectively using an APS-C sensor at that point.

Hey Richard, thanks for the reply. Looks like Phillip Bloom did a low light comparison GH5s vs A7r3 (s35 crop). When viewed on a large monitor, it appears the GH5s begins to fall apart at ISO 6400.

Specifically, I'm looking at the detail and perceptible noise on the skiff docked behind bridge, man walking on bridge, railing on bridge, etc. The A7r3 stays sharp all the way up to ISO 25,600...would logically assume = or > results from A6500 since it's 6K oversampled 4K (vs 5K oversampled 4K on A7r3) on same APS-C sensor size.

what are we looking for, here? the review/measure should be done based on the category.the G9 should have got Gold and this one shouldn't get any award. this camera fails in so many areas as a photographic equipment (which is how this gear is classified by Pana) and excelled in video.So is this gold award a measure against all video camera or still+hybrid video? don't think this would match the current still+hybrid which includes GH5 and G9...Maybe create a new category like ILVC (video camera)...

Hmm, really interesing. I think your point is really valid. DPR gave gold medal to a totally niche video-centric camera and silver to the excellent hybrid G9. Even as a video camera the GH5S is, in my opinion, far from gold; the totally unreliable video AF would have been enough reason not to give gold. You cannot even punch in for magnification while recording. The lack of IBIS on a gold-awarded mirrorless camera in 2018 is weird, too.

The dpr's argument for giving it gold is that for this one camera they have decided that video is sole point of comparison and to show how good it is they would compare it with cameras designed for mainly still photography.

If it doesn't bring them home then they can compare it with 3 year older ff camera with conditions of same dof because obviously a ff shooters checks with gh5 users what dof they would use.

it does not fail for the group it is taylored to. If you want a car that does a lot good, no Ferrari needed and it is overly expensive. If you want a beautifully designed car, superb in so many specialised ways a Ferrari could well be what you want if you have the money. So a Ferrari is very good for its intended audience, not the general public. The GH5s is much the same. I think looking at what it does for the public it is (clearly) intended to makes the most sense, but to each their own. G9 gold? Of course, not the first time dpreview has no real argument not to give it gold then seems to look for some reasons to. G9, as we can see in TCSTV for example, is a fantastic cam. I have Em1.2 but from wht I have seen G9 is just much more rounded, even if its CAF is no as good as the one on the Em1.2 it is quite close and the rest is just...better mostly.

I shot our DR wedge exposed for middle grey and all the ISO settings clipped the highlights at the same point.

When Panasonic came to see us they said the "Native" ISOs were 400 and 2500 but when we asked what they meant by this, they said they were "settings that performed well and gave some flexibility to move up and down". The sensor behaviour changes at 160 and 800 (which are 320 and 1600 in V-Log L and HLG).

Interestingly, though, when I last looked at the disagram on page 176 of the manual you can download from this page, it only had the two sections, representing Normal and V-Log. I need to speak to Panasonic about a couple of things anyway, so I'll seek (further) clarification.

@Richard Butler, thank you for that explanation. It sounds like the GH5s is different than the GH5 in that respect. With the GH5 the "Native" ISO values are also the "Base" ISO values. Anything below the "Native" ISO values on the GH5 was an extended ISO.

That doesn't appear to be the case with the GH5s. It has many real ISO values below the lower "Native" ISO value and then some extended values below that. I suspect those extended ISO values clip the highlights early like on the GH5. Did you check that?

There are going to be an awful lot of people with the GH5s who are exposing properly but using ISO 400 or 800. That will severely limit their dynamic range as opposed to using ISO 160, correct?

There was a lot of interesting information in the GH5s manual. It does appear that ISO 160 and ISO 800 are the "Base" ISO values for the GH5s. Using any other value besides those will limit dynamic range.

Now that doesn't mean you should never use anything but ISO 160 or ISO 800. However, you need to make that decision to give up dynamic range in favor of other advantages.

If the scene you are recording does not exceed the dynamic range that the camera can capture then giving up some dynamic range shouldn't be a big deal.

Not everything you record has an extreme amount of dynamic range. Even scenes where the highlights are clipping may not have that much dynamic range unless there are also some EXTREMELY dark portions as well.

You did an excellent job with this review by the way @Richard Butler. There is a lot of great and very complicated information that you have given us.

This is the largest camera body with the smallest sensor I've ever seen. It also has the lowest MP count (10!) of any camera in the last 5-10 years? AND, they also want $2,500 for it, unbelievable! Good for video but not so good for stills, OMG! I guess if you need a good video camera for very low light it might be a good choice, if you don't mind the size, weight, and COST. I wonder how many people would actually by this niche camera.

Oops. Substantial loss of [stills] resolution prioritizes video? Cough cough, A non-sequitur... The reduction of resolution and deployment of BSI for the first time favors low-light shooting regardless of whether it be for video or stills. For a camera that wears 4K video credentials on its sleeve, and there is no loss of resolution, but excess available. Those who shoot stills were never much interested in the first place because there are so many other wonderful options.

The appearance of a sensor clearly optimized for video, in a camera with the most videocentric feature set we've ever tested, strongly suggests the reason for this pixel count is video.

If, as we suspect, it's a Bayer version of this chip then it suggests Sony Semiconductor also thinks the pixel count has been chosen for video.

Yes, there's a pixel level benefit to large pixels that appears at very high ISOs, but nothing about this camera or the surrounding marketing suggests that this camera was developed with that in mind. Its stills feature set is essentially the by-product of it sharing hardware with the GH5.

To me, it looks like a fairly clear trade-off: a gain in video capability, regardless of the impact on stills. So I'd argue that one thing follows from the other.

Gino may actually have a point. After watching Phillip Bloom's latest comparison between the GH5s and the A7s2, I would like to see a similar low low comparison between the A6500 & GH5s. At ISO 6400 on the GH5s, I'm starting to see more noise than I normally notice from my A6500 @ ISO 6400.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMqUBoCStpw

I wonder how perfect the balance will be once Fuji announces their X-H1 video centric so called hybrid. If Fuji adds video centric menu features and options, then the only real missing aspects would be 4K/60 and a fully articulated LCD. The suggested retail price (body only) is $500-600 less than GH5S.

I think the Gold award presents a conundrum. The only real advantage the GH5S has is that it is better than the GH5 in low light. So is the Gold award relative to only the Micro Four Thirds Category?

Even then, does not the GH5 and G9 extol far more virtues than the GH5S at a much lower cost?

Once everyone gets over the novel shininess of the GH5S, the reality that the GH5, G9, the Fuji X-H1, and the next Sony Alpha 6XXX will present, is going to leave the GH5S on a very lonely island with a gold medal around its neck.

I foresee massive price drops and ample regret for the GH5S and it’s early adopters. Especially if Fuji’s X-H1 nails AF and IBIS.

@NZ Scott, for $2,500 you would pay for "pretty decent camera for stills"? You could pay a lot less for a FF or APS-C camera for MUCH better stills, IMO. Also, with only 10MP's, how good can the really be, especially if you need to crop, or print over 8x10"?

Please, like you said below, devise a method to better exemplify these differences in a review. In the London days of DPReview I remember the reviews to be very introductory, so that even if you knew nothing about terminology you would get pretty much an on-the-spot course.

So basically this is first time DPR openly admitting that the awards given are totally subjective and are on the whims of the reviewer. They have nothing much to do with what the camera can really do. In this example for the price point it is very mediocre camera for stills, but now somehow reviewer has decided that stills not matter much compared to peer cameras.

zxaar - DPR has always made clear that the awards are our overall assessment of the camera as a whole (with the implication being: 'for its intended use and users'). That reviews are subjective (which they are, by definition) is hardly a a secret, so 'admit' is entirely the wrong word.

The GH5S is excellent at what it's supposed to do. The conclusion explains the logic behind the award and makes clear the limitations compared with other cameras (at things it's not meant to do).

You can't hold all cameras to the same yardstick because they're not all meant to offer the same things to the same people. But we explain our reasoning so that you can decide whether our conclusion is relevant to you.

I don't see anything unusual about the high marks here despite the still performance and the price. Sony A7s is also a video-oriented camera, and it also got the gold award too, despite it's stills image quality. For GH5s, dpreview clearly states it produces the best video quality they ever tested.

There's something I don't get:When I compare the 4K video stills of the GH5s to the Sony a6500, The image from the a6500 is clearly better, but everyone seems to agree that the GH5s shoots better moving pictures overall.

I suppose the main advantage the GH5s has, lies in its ability to capture at higher bitrates and higher bit-depth - and so, better DR in moving pictures.I wonder what Sony would be able to do with the a6500 successor, if it could output UHDp60 @ 10bit @ 200Mbps+ (without over-heating, of course). Can't wait...

That's the drawback of over-interpreting still grabs from video: they tell you about how the camera is sampling its sensor, some information about detail capture and sharpening but nothing about the codec: how it retains information about motion, how effective the temporal noise reduction is, etc...

Probably because the Sony is down-rezing its 4k footage. Others have shown that the GH5 footage is sharper than the GH5s as well.So worse spatial resolution, but better precision and range in color resolution (or could be thought of as better temporal resolution).

While this camera not only beats full frame cameras, it is more flexible too.It comes close to the best while allowing for a wider depth of field, it pulls a good distance ahead when DoF is equal, and in a few cases gives a shallower DoF than FF can provide.A great example is zooms. The fastest FF zooms are F2.8, but with a speedbooster and an APSC F1.8 zoom the equivalent aperture for the zoom is about F2.5.

So overall a better camera for video and taking in to account that flexibility a significantly better camera for video.

Sadly the 0.64x Speedbooster takes the net crop to 1.28x, which is substantially wider than the roughly 1.5x crop APS-C lenses are designed for. As a result the Sigma 18-35mm vignettes at the wide end of the zoom when used with the 0.64 Speedbooster XL.

The video on the conclusion page of the review was shot using the Sigma 18-35mm T2.0 CINE and Speedbooster Ultra (0.71), which was a lovely combination to work with.

Steelhead: the RX10 III is very good at video for a high-end compact but it suffers from the same drawback as the a7S II: comparatively low bitrate 8-bit output. However its smaller sensor (1/2 the size of the GH5S's) means that, even when optimally exposed, it'll have 1EV more shot noise.

The a7S II is the other video-focused (but still stills-capable) ILC on the market. It's also similar in price to the GH5S and has a reputation for great low light performance, so it seemed like the obvious comparison to make here.

steelhead3: I agree that the 1"-type sensor is closer in size but I maintain that the a7S II is the more direct competitor. Also, with a 1EV noise disadvantage (given both sensors are almost certainly BSI and hence likely to be comparable in terms of efficiency), the RX is going to have the same challenges as the a7S II only more so, since it'll have a noisier/lower DR signal that's then compressed into 100 Mbps 8-bit.

That's a different discussion from useability: the RX10 III is likely to be a better run-and-gun choice (thanks to better AF and reasonable IS) than the GH5S, but that's not what the Panasonic is trying to be, so isn't how we assessed it.

Gold award for a camera with only contrast detect?Although I can admit that Panasonic has done a great works at speed focus, you shown us in the movie sample included in the conclusion, the camera is hunting for focus which means that it does do some blur once in a while. To me, it appears very distractive and does represent annoyance when watching movie. I personally favor any phase detect sensor over contrast for video quality. Because you mention that GH5S main target audience is filmmaker, I do not understand how this camera, which also does not have any stabiliser, could afford a Gold Award. To me gold award would represent the best buy (or one for a specific domain). I think I would get better results with Fuji, Canon or Olympus for capturing movie with moving subjects... But I could be wrong.

I don’t think it’s likely you somehow just spotted a major flaw in Panasonics reasoning in bringing this camera to the market. For everybody else here it’s more likely that this camera targets an area you know nil about.

I keep asking myself who is this camera really for? Those who are already invested on a GH5 would not change it for a marginal ISO improvement, those on A7sII would never give up at least 2-3 stops of higher ISO and IBIS for something like this.

Photographically it makes matters worse: there is simply no reason whatsoever to buy this for photos. Megapixel count way to small. Some might argue that it is plenty but any way you look you can get a higher Megapixel count camera and downsize to the same as the GH5s and get way cleaner output when needed.

This seems a shot in the foot of Panasonic. Those who do not own a GH5 already won't be wooed by marginal improvements. Those who want quality will take a bigger sensor. Those who want portability like myself, the initial promise of MFT, will get a 1 inch camera and be happy. Quality wise is on par from the top MFT and at least they fit in a bag.

The only way for MFT companies to compete is to increase sensor size. But will they ever?

Sensor size really doesn't matter for video. If you want more DOF, use a speedbooster. People aren't buying these cameras for the sensor size, its the cabability. 10 bit 422 4k...4k@60 you can't get in any other camera in this form factor right now. a7sII is nice, but its still 8 bit UHD. For people who want the higher quality...and now better low light...this is the camera to have.

The GH5s photo specs are not attractive. For that price there are way better options, new or used. Talking about photos, I guess even an old 12mp Nikon D700 can still hold its own against the GH5s.It's a camera designed for video people and as of today, 2018, it offers so many attractive options for video production which are generally found only on bigger and expensive models (+5000 euro): 4k 422 color space, 10 bit video up to 400mbps, internal cinema 4k resolution up to 60p, anamorphic, vectorscope, log and Lut internally, using the nice audio unit DMW-XLR for professional mics, etc.Similar options can be found for example in the Canon C200, which is 3 times bigger and 5 times more expensive.

It's the perfect options for people interested in both video and still images. Adapters allow you to use different lens mounts. Personally I think I will get one after waiting a little in case some issues show up. I will add it to my current Fuji XT2 and 3-4 Leica R and M lenses.

Sensor size is not weighted nearly as hard in video work flows as it is in stills. That being said why is it always the case with you sensor puritans that size stops mattering at APS-C? M43 is significantly larger than 1inch but according to you it's basically the same. Also unless you're talking about the old Nikon 1 system, there are no ILC options in 1 inch format right now.

You obviously don't shoot video, so the desirability of these features may b somewhat lost on you. Shallow depth of field in video is the devil incarnate.

Do you have any idea how much light it takes to get proper exposure at f/8 60fps at ISO 1600? You need at a minimum 1000 watt fill and 3KW key just to light it! Drop that down to f/2.0 on m43 and I'd be using 300W fills and 750W keys and shoot at ISO 800 all day, and for less money and more comfort for the talent.

Um...Red is not FF. It is Super 35mm, a standard size for cinema cameras which is similar to APS-C in size. As I said before, if DOF is the issue use a speedbooster with fast primes...which is not something you can do with an iphone. The problem most noobs run into (and I used to be like this myself) is that OMG EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE SHOT AT T0.95...which is foolish. Telltale sign of a noob DP is shooting everything wide open and needing to shoot on a FF camera. I have a FF Nikon...never use it for video because the compression is crap. A large sensor has its place, and if you feel the need to shoot FF to get that little slice of focus, then great. But not everything requires constant creamy bokeh. :) Subjective statement, I know.

All of these suddenly show improved results above a certain ISO, then performance consistent with that step thereafter. The difference is that it's been pushed as a marketing distinction in video but not stills.

The gh5 was more a hybrid camera with a focus on video. This camera, the gh5s is more or less a video camera with stills capability - nobody will buy it for said still capability, most who buy it will already have a more capable stills camera. 10mp is more than enough for 4k video. The red raven for example only has a 9.9 megapixel sensor, whereas a camera like a canon xa35 camcorder has a 3mp sensor.....

Because they're extremely heavily invested in m4/3, being one of the two founders of the 4/3 platform and producing a large number of lenses for this format. It wouldn't make any business sense for Panasonic to make a camera for which they produce exactly 0 lenses. It would be a huge investment for very little gain.

Let me repeat the question: why should it be a niche thing (video) only? Why not FF as well? Sony make super 35 cameras for both video and photo, but they also make FF for photo and video, and are seriously invested in either. What stops Panasonic to do the same?

You say "ff sells well"??? Not even close to how well cameras with teeny tiny sensors sell. I believe Panasonic are doing well with their GH series. The cost to benefit ratio of building a new line of larger sensored cameras, just to please a handful of fanatics who don't understand the benefits of what they produce, must be horrendous. Why stop with the 35mm compromise? Why not do what clever old Fuji did and bypass it completely??

"'What is Log gamma?' we hear the more inquisitive among you ask. Log gamma is a way of compressing more of the camera's dynamic range into a relatively low bit-depth file, to allow more flexibility when post processing the footage."

If you do NOT ADD "at the expensive of color information in your 24-bit color space" you're perpetuating the myth that LOG shooting profiles deliver cost-free increase in DR. And it does not "compress". It selects noisier pixel data at the extremes over pixel data in the middle. When people read "compress" they sometimes don't equate that with quality loss.

Clarifying later with the this muddle "so you should only shoot Log when the scene demands it" is not necessary if you're clear in the first place. If users understand the trade-offs in LOG gammas they could make those choices with real knowledge.

It compresses in the sense that it squeezes the data that makes up most of the Raw capture into relatively few values in the video file. But I agree I should make more clear that by trying to squeeze more dynamic range into a limited bit-depth file, you end up sharing those limited values over a wider range of tones (and hence risk posterization and noise).

Hi Richard. I understand what you're saying, 24-bit values are limited compared to RAW, but not to what we need. It can hold the maximum number of colors we can discern (we're 8-12 million and 24-bit data is 16 million). I've been trying to do video to explain these misconceptions. Like https://youtu.be/fkqZ66e0b1U and a couple of recent ones. A couple of things that cleared up this subject for me. 1) We set dynamic range manually, or is set by our monitor and we need that to be within around 5 stops. The world has a wider range of brightness, but there is NO WAY to fit more than 5 stops of color into our 24bit space without throwing out visual data we expect to be there. The benefit of RAW really isn't in extended DR but in having some latitude in re-setting exposure after the fact. Anyway, it would be great if you guys at DPReview did a piece that explains this topic in depth. I suggest doing some experiments too, as I have done. Thanks for the reply!

Yes, you're right, DR and latitude are pretty much the same thing. The point I was trying to make is that all video ends up in around the 5 stops of DR inherent in display technology. So if we expose correctly we can often just as well record in JPEG, so to speak. With RAW, we can have the latitude to move our exposure up and down the latitude scale a bit, after the fact. That's a great benefit right? You can't do that with 8-bit video because it already caps DR at 5 stops. The problem with LOG in 8-bit, is you're not really getting the full sensor data above and beyond those 5 stops; they've been thrown out. Let me know if this still doesn't make sense.

You raise an excellent point about the drawbacks of shooting Log. People seem to think it's the default best choice, but at least the cameras I've used, the manufacturers recommend against it unless you have a specific reason.

Everything listed in the article is better than what the Panasonic HC-VXF990 4K is capable of achieving. Focally the widest the VXF990 can shoot is 30mm. But then again one can always zoom with ones feet.

Essentially it’s like comparing a point and shoot camera to a DSLR.

Basically, the GH5S can potentially be used in actual movie production, footage shot could be manipulated with relative ease in post production to match other studio cameras somewhat. The Panasonic HC-VXF990 4K not so much, not even close.

Because this camera is so complex and video is so different from stills, this seems like a good opportunity to throw a spot of work to Alan Roberts and get a proper evaluation of the video. After all, his tests and recommendations are the main, if not the sole, reason that BBC video is the gold standard for the world. Besides, it's time that Americans get the benefit of his preternatural understanding of the topic. Or do you Brits want to selfishly keep him all to yourselves?

More about gear in this article

At this year's CP+ show in Yokohama, Japan, we talked in-depth with Panasonic about the company's new Lumix G9 and GH5S cameras and its increased emphasis on stills capture as well as high-quality 4K video.

As part of an update to our Buying Guides, we've crowned a new winner in the video category: the Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S. Its excellent video quality and extensive range of support features see it take top honors as we add the latest models to our guides.

With video-centric cameras like the Panasonic GH5S in the office, it seemed high time to learn how to shoot with a gimbal. After a struggle up the learning curve, DPR staffer has found some sort of equilibrium.

The GH5S is heavily video-focused Micro Four Thirds camera, but nevertheless we were interested in its still photo output. And so, we've added a full stills sample gallery to complement our existing video tests of the camera.

Shooting the GH5S side-by-side with the Sony a7S II we simply couldn't recreate some of the more optimistic claims made for the Panasonic camera. That said, here's why we think the GH5S is the most exciting video camera we've ever used.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Nikon Z6 may not offer the incredible resolution of its sibling, the Z7, but its 24MP resolution is more than enough for most people, and the money saved can buy a lot of glass. Find out what's new and notable about the Z6 in our First Impressions Review.

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

At its core, the Scanza is an easy-to-use multi-format film scanner. It offers a quick and easy way to scan your film negatives and slides into JPEGs, but costs a lot more than similar products without a Kodak label.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2018.

Sony had the full-frame mirrorless market to itself for nearly five years, but it's no longer alone – the Nikon Z6 and Canon EOS R have both arrived priced to compete with the a7 III. We take a head to head to head look at these three cameras.

As if it needed one, the triple-camera smartphone might really be the final nail in the compact camera's coffin. DPR contributor Lars Rehm brought the LG V40 on a hiking trip recently and found it to be a huge leap forward in terms of creative freedom.

Renowned UK-based landscape photographer Nigel Danson has been using DSLRs for years. In this video, created exclusively for DPReview, Nigel discusses his experience using the Nikon Z7 and why he's excited about mirrorless cameras. (Spoiler... beautiful scenery ahead.)

Chinese optical manufacturer Kipon has added the Nikon Z and Canon R mounts to its range of adapters made to attach medium format lenses from Hasselblad, Mamiya, Pentax and others to full frame cameras.